Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Lowenthal v Street Guarantee (Pty) Ltd and Others (42558/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 405 (28 November 2017)
The High Court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his particulars of claim, rejecting objections that the amendment was late, vague, or prejudicial.
Mesha v Department of Local Government and Housing and Another (JS162/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 309 (24 August 2017)
The Labour Court dismissed an employee’s claim for a salary upgrade, finding no binding oral agreement and no breach of contract.
Opti Feeds (Pty) Ltd v Raymond Glynn Keeny t/a Raynel Ranches (1255/01) [2016] ZANWHC 10 (17 March 2016)
High Court exception and amendment ruling on a credit-sale dispute: parts of the plea and counterclaim were struck out as vague, with leave to amend.
Mooirivier Mall (Pty) Ltd v Rowmoor Investments 804 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cape Town Fish Market and Others (A847/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 139 (4 March 2015)
The court found that the written lease agreement was validly cancelled on 13 October 2011 following the termination of the franchise. Thereafter, an oral agreement was reached between the parties, permitting the respondent to continue trading under the 'Fusion' concept until the end of February 2012. The evidence of the appellant's own witnesses confirmed the existence and terms of this oral agreement. The appellant was not entitled to claim rent or holding-over charges after February 2012, as the respondent was locked out and ceased occupation. The sureties' liability did not extend to the o…
Source excerpt
Pape v El Gondor Trading 220 (Pty) Ltd and Another (11090/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 859 (7 October 2014)
The High Court held that a written management agreement was orally varied, rejected reliance on a non-variation clause, and ordered repayment of the capital and interest.
Edge Distributors CC v Minco Resources 202 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2010/12065) [2010] ZAGPJHC 116 (22 November 2010)
The court found that the commission-sharing arrangement between the applicant and third respondent was not governed by the non-variation clause in the Vizirama contract, as it was a separate agreement and not an annexure to the main contract. The oral variation of the commission-sharing arrangement was therefore effective. The evidence, including subsequent contracts and correspondence, supported the respondents' version that the applicant was only entitled to commission from the Nuco contract and not from the Vizirama contract. The court further held that there was a material dispute of fact…
Source excerpt
Hamilsplit (EDMS) Bpk and Another v Erasmus and Another (4483/2005) [2007] ZAFSHC 98 (20 September 2007)
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove an oral amendment making the first defendant liable for commission repayments, and absolved him from the instance with costs.
Absa Bank Beperk v Mbuli (3097/05) [2005] ZAGPHC 55 (16 May 2005)
The court found that the respondent's alleged oral agreement with the bank did not amount to a pactum de non petendo, nor did it constitute a valid variation of the mortgage bond contract. The arrangement was aimed at varying installments and providing indulgence for non-payment, but there was no evidence that the bank undertook not to sue. The contract's non-variation clause required amendments to be in writing, and the respondent's actions, including cancelling cheques, did not demonstrate a waiver or suspension of the applicant's rights. The respondent failed to raise a triable issue suffi…
Source excerpt
Dries v Venter NO and Others (24094/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 37; 2005 (6) SA 67 (T) (1 April 2005)
The court found that the applicant was obliged to comply with section 4 of PIE before seeking eviction, as the property included a house used for dwelling by the first respondent and potentially other vulnerable persons. The court rejected the applicant's argument that PIE did not apply simply because the respondents acted as trustees of a trust, noting that the actual occupation and use of the property for residential purposes brought the matter within the ambit of PIE. The absence of clear evidence regarding the presence of farm workers did not absolve the applicant from the statutory notic…
Source excerpt
Armstrong v Sehadew Oree t/a Oree's Cartage & Plant Hire (315/2002) [2003] ZASCA 116; 2004 (3) SA 152 (SCA) (14 November 2003)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ordinary sand is not a “mineral” under section 3(1) of Act 50 of 1956, so the oral sand-sale agreement was valid.
Explore more
